You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY IN THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING SUNY ALBANY’S FINDING PETITIONER VIOLATED THE CODE OF CONDUCT BY HAVING NONCONSENSUAL SEX; THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAS NO MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT; PETITIONER ALLEGED BIAS ON THE PART OF THE SCHOOL’S TITLE IX INVESTIGATOR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined petitioner was entitled to discovery in petitioner’s Article 78 proceeding contesting SUNY Albany’s finding petitioner violated the school’s code of conduct. The student was accused of sexual misconduct, but the alleged victim had no memory of the incident. The investigation was conducted by respondent Chantelle Cleary, the Title IX coordinator at the school:

We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for discovery. In a special proceeding such as this, discovery is available only by leave of court (see CPLR 408 …). “Among the factors weighed are whether the party seeking disclosure has established that the requested information is material and necessary, whether the request is carefully tailored to obtain the necessary information and whether undue delay will result from the request” … . Petitioner’s motion requested the disclosure of, among other things, “[r]ecordings of all meetings and interviews” between petitioner and the Title IX investigators, as well as “[r]ecordings of all interviews of all witnesses” conducted in furtherance of the investigation. Petitioner cited the alleged bias of Cleary, and the attendant bias on his guarantee of an impartial investigation, as the reason the requested discovery was “material and necessary”; respondents did not argue that the requested discovery was overbroad or would cause undue delay. Thus, we find that petitioner met the requirements for discovery … . …

Here, where the nonconsensual nature of the sexual activity was not predicated on the reporting individual’s verbal and physical manifestation of nonconsent — but on her ability to knowingly consent due to excessive inebriation — and the reporting individual avers no memory of the activity, the Board’s determination was necessarily heavily reliant on that part of the referral report that contained a summary of statements of persons who had observed the reporting individual during Friday evening, prior to her sexual encounter with petitioner. Notably, these are not sworn affidavits of the witnesses, but rather statements collected and compiled by the Title IX investigators. Matter of Alexander M. v Cleary, 2020 NY Slip Op 06987, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff bank’s motion to extend the time to serve defendant in the interest of justice:

… [A] court may, in the interest of justice, extend the time in which a plaintiff may effectuate proper service upon a defendant (see CPLR 306-b) … . Whether to grant an extension of time for service in the interest of justice is a discretionary determination, requiring the trial court to engage in “a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case” and balance competing interests … . The trial court’s determination is guided by various factors and circumstances that may be taken into consideration, including the plaintiff’s diligence (or lack thereof), the expiration of the statute of limitations, whether the underlying cause of action is meritorious, the length in delay of service, whether the plaintiff promptly sought the extension of time and any prejudice that may be borne by the defendant … . This Court should not disturb the trial court’s discretionary determination unless such determination constitutes an abuse of discretion … . …

The statute of limitations had expired prior to plaintiff making its extension motion — a factor that weighs in favor of granting the extension motion. However, plaintiff engaged in a pattern of dilatory conduct throughout the action’s pendency over nearly a decade. Indeed, it took plaintiff roughly three years after commencing the action to file a request for judicial intervention and the case was administratively closed by Supreme Court on at least one occasion. Additionally, despite having been made aware of the service issue in April 2016, plaintiff did not ultimately move for an extension to serve the complaint until November 2018, roughly 2½ years later. Further, as Supreme Court recognized, the mortgage contains a significant error, which raises real concerns as to plaintiff’s ability to prevail upon the merits. In our view, Supreme Court weighed the appropriate factors and reasonably concluded that they did not militate in favor of plaintiff … . JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v Kelleher, 2020 NY Slip Op 06990, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

, ,

AS NO PETITION WAS BEFORE THE COURT, FAMILY COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER A FORENSIC EVALUATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction when it issued a forensic evaluation because no petition was before the court:

Petitioner (hereinafter the father) and respondent (hereinafter the mother) are the parents of two children (born in 2004 and 2006). In July 2018, the parties stipulated in open court to a settlement of the father’s modification of custody petition and violation petitions then pending in Family Court. The parties stipulated to, among other things, suspension of the collection of accrued child support arrears and, as relevant here, agreed to engage in family counseling and to a protocol for the selection of a therapist. The transcript of the parties’ stipulation of settlement was incorporated by reference into a consent order entered in March 2019. Thereafter, the parties failed to agree on the selection of a therapist, prompting the father to request that the court appoint as a therapist a licensed psychiatrist versed in parental alienation. In June 2019, the court appointed a psychologist, but the psychologist declined to provide counseling services. By letter, the father then, among other things, requested that the court order a forensic evaluation by a different licensed psychologist. After converting the father’s request to an application for a court-ordered forensic evaluation, the court ordered a forensic evaluation over the mother’s objection. The mother appealed from that order, and we granted the mother’s subsequent motion for a stay of Family Court’s order pending resolution of this appeal … . * * *

Less than one year after the stipulation was incorporated by reference into a consent order, Family Court … ordered a forensic evaluation, citing the “unusual situation” whereby the parties stipulated to — and the court ordered — counseling and all efforts failed. This was error, as no petition had been filed by the father since the March 2019 consent order was entered, and no proceedings were therefore pending to provide Family Court with jurisdiction to render the appealed-from order directing a forensic evaluation (see Family Ct Act §§ 154-a, 251 [a] … ). Indeed, as is the case here, an expectation of finality derives from a stipulation of settlement entered into by those with legal capacity to negotiate … . Accordingly, we find that Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order a forensic evaluation. Matter of James R. v Jennifer S., 2020 NY Slip Op 06997, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT CLAIMED IN HIS DEPOSITION HE COULDN’T STOP AT THE RED LIGHT BECAUSE THE FLOOR MAT HAD ROLLED UP UNDER THE BRAKE PEDAL; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED THE DEPOSITION AS PART OF PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE MAJORITY HELD THE DEPOSITION WAS HEARSAY AND THEREFORE COULD NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE USUAL HEARSAY RULES DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEPOSITION WAS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident was properly granted. The defendant, in his deposition, claimed he was unable to stop at the red light because the floor mat had rolled up under the brake pedal. The plaintiff submitted defendant’s deposition testimony as part of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. The majority considered defendant’s testimony hearsay and therefore insufficient to defeat summary judgment. The dissenters argued the hearsay rule did not apply because plaintiff submitted the deposition and thereby raised triable issues of fact, or, in the alternative, waived any objection to the hearsay:

Plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion of establishing as a matter of law that defendant was negligent in his operation of the vehicle inasmuch as defendant failed to stop at a red light … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, he failed to raise an issue of fact whether the emergency doctrine applies here … . The emergency doctrine provides that, “when [a driver] is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the [driver] to be reasonably so disturbed that [he or she] must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the [driver] may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context” … . However, “[t]he emergency doctrine is only applicable when a party is confronted by [a] sudden, unforeseeable occurrence not of their own making” … . Stated differently, “it is settled law that the emergency doctrine has no application where . . . the party seeking to invoke it has created or contributed to the emergency” … . Further, although hearsay evidence may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, it is not by itself sufficient to defeat such a motion … . Here, defendant testified at his deposition that, at the time of the accident, he was not sure why he could not apply his brakes. He learned after the accident from a body shop mechanic that “[t]he floor pad was rolled up underneath the brake pedal.” He also testified that the floor mat sliding underneath his brakes was “the only reason [he could] think of” for his inability to brake. In view of that deposition testimony, we conclude that defendant’s reliance on the emergency doctrine was based solely on hearsay and speculation and thus did not raise a triable issue of fact whether that doctrine applies. The record includes no affidavit or deposition testimony from defendant’s mechanic. Watson v Peschel, 2020 NY Slip Op 06880, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

, , ,

THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE DEFENSE EXPERT USING DECEDENT’S HUSBAND’S DEPOSITION IN THIS NEGLIGENCE AND PUBLIC-HEALTH-LAW VIOLATION CASE; THE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND, A NONPARTY, WAS AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY; THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been allowed to cross-examine the defense expert using the deposition of decedent’s husband, who was available to testify. The defense motion to set aside the verdict in this negligence and Public-Health-Law violation case should have been granted:

Supreme Court erred in allowing plaintiff to cross-examine a defense expert using the deposition of decedent’s husband, a nonparty. CPLR 3117 limits the use of a nonparty’s deposition at trial to either the impeachment of that nonparty as a witness … , or for “any purpose against any other party” in case of the nonparty’s unavailability at trial … . Here, plaintiff was not using the husband’s deposition testimony to impeach the husband’s own trial testimony, and the husband was available and testified at trial. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, CPLR 4515 does not permit a party to cross-examine an expert with all the materials that the expert reviewed in formulating his or her opinion, regardless of the independent admissibility of those materials … . “That statute provides only that an expert witness may on cross-examination ‘be required to specify the data and other criteria supporting the opinion’ ” … . Because the testimony pertained directly to the central issue to be resolved by the jury, i.e., the quality of care that decedent received, the error was not harmless … . Williams v Ridge View Manor, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06894, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

, ,

FATHER AND MOTHER SUBMITTED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CHILDREN WERE CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; FATHER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS PETITION TO TERMINATE HIS CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s motion for summary judgment on his petition to terminate his child support obligations based on the children’s constructive emancipation was properly denied, and mother’s motion for summary judgment dismissing father’s petition should not have been granted. The basis for both rulings was the inadmissible evidence submitted by father and mother:

… [W]e conclude that the father did not meet his initial burden on his motion of establishing that their refusal to visit with him was unjustified … . Inasmuch as the father’s own submissions suggest that the subject children did not want to visit him due to their purported knowledge of the sex abuse allegations, his submissions failed to eliminate all material issues of fact … . Indeed, the father failed to establish that his behavior “was not a primary cause of the deterioration in his relationship with [the subject] children” … . Thus, we conclude that the court properly denied his motion.

We also conclude that the court should not have granted that part of the mother’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the petition. The court erred in relying on the unsworn letters from the subject children’s psychologist because they were not in admissible form … . Without the letters from the children’s psychologist, we conclude that the mother failed to meet her initial burden on her motion of establishing that the children were justified in abandoning the father by refusing to attend visitation. Like the father, the mother did not submit any admissible evidence establishing the reasons for the children’s decision not to visit the father. We therefore modify the amended order accordingly. Matter of Timothy M.M. v Doreen R., 2020 NY Slip Op 06886, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

, ,

THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT SO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS KEPT RUNNING, RENDERING THE INSTANT ACTION UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should have been dismissed as untimely. The debt was accelerated with the first foreclosure action was commenced in 2008, starting the running of the six-year statute of limitations. The discontinuing of the that action did not revoke the acceleration:

“[A] lender’s mere act of discontinuing an action, without more, does not constitute, in and of itself, an affirmative act revoking an earlier acceleration of the debt” … .

None of the other facts relied upon by the plaintiff establish that the 2008 acceleration of the loan balance was affirmatively revoked. “[D]e-acceleration notices must . . . be clear and unambiguous to be valid and enforceable” … . While the plaintiff points to the fact that the defendant purportedly received billing statements after the first action was discontinued and that the second complaint alleged a different date of default, these facts do not establish that a clear and unambiguous notice of revocation of the acceleration was given to the defendant. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Islam, 2020 NY Slip Op 06823, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

, ,

THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO PETITION FOR VISITATION AFTER MOTHER’S DEATH; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE PETITION WITHOUT HOLDING A “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the maternal grandparent had standing to petition for visitation after mother died. Because the grandparent had standing, Family Court should have held a “best interests” hearing rather than precluding the presentation of evidence and granting father’s petition to deny the petition:

… [I]t is undisputed that the maternal grandparents have standing based upon the death of the child’s mother. Since the maternal grandparents have standing, the Family Court should have proceeded to conduct a best interests determination based upon admissible evidence … . Instead, the maternal grandparents were not permitted to present any evidence, no testimony was taken from any of the parties, and no in camera interview with the child was conducted. We disagree with the court’s determination to grant the father’s application, in effect, to deny the petition and dismiss the proceeding without first conducting a hearing … . Matter of Jafer v Marasa, 2020 NY Slip Op 06789, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

,

THE 2019 MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO ACTIVE STATUS AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS VACATED IN 2012 SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; LACHES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO SERVICE OF A 90-DAY DEMAND PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the traffic accident action to active status in 2019 after the note of issue had been vacated in 2012 should have been granted. The doctrine of laches does not apply where there has been not service of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216:

CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action … . Further, there was neither a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 … , nor an order dismissing the complaint pursuant 22 NYCRR 202.27 … .

Moreover, “[t]he doctrine of laches does not provide [a] basis to dismiss a complaint where there has been no service of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b), and where the case management devices of CPLR 3404 and 22 NYCRR 202.27 are inapplicable” … . “The procedural device of dismissing a complaint for undue delay is a legislative creation, and courts do not possess the inherent power to dismiss an action for general delay where the plaintiff has not been served with a 90-day demand to serve and file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)” … . In the absence of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to active status should have been granted … . Guillebeaux v Parrott, 2020 NY Slip Op 06762, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ MEDICAL EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BASED UPON THE MEDICAL RECORDS AND MATERIAL IN EVIDENCE DESPITE NOT HAVING PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURIES; THE EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT CAUSATION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE EXPERT REPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in this rear-end collision case should have been granted because defendants’ expert was precluded from testifying:

“[T]o be admissible, opinion evidence must be based on,” inter alia, (1) “personal knowledge of the facts upon which the opinion rests,” or, (2) “where the expert does not have personal knowledge of the facts upon which the opinion rests, the opinion may be based upon facts and material in evidence, real or testimonial” … . Here, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to preclude the defendants’ medical expert, Edward Weiland, from testifying regarding records and testimony that were in evidence and from testifying on the issue of causation. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Weiland should have been permitted to testify regarding the records and testimony in evidence even if he lacked personal knowledge as to the specific injuries addressed therein … . Furthermore, Weiland should have been permitted to testify on the issue of causation, despite not having addressed this issue in his expert report, because “the issue of causation was implicit on the question of damages” … . The court’s errors in limiting Weiland’s testimony were not harmless … . Therefore, the court should have granted the defendants’ motion, in effect, to set aside the jury verdict, to vacate the judgment entered thereon, and for a new trial on the issue of damages. Gubitosi v Hyppolite, 2020 NY Slip Op 06761, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy